Jones v. Wayne County Municipal Court et al
Filing
6
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2 ), denying Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. # 3 ) and dismissing this matter. An appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith. Judge John R. Adams on 11/24/15. (K,C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JASON KEITH JONES,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE COUNTY MUNICIPAL
COURT, et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. 5:15 CV 1768
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
AND ORDER
This is another in forma pauperis civil rights action filed in this Court by pro se plaintiff
Jason Keith Jones.1 In this action, the plaintiff seeks $1.8 million in damages from the Wayne
County Municipal Court, Timothy R. Vansickle, Jerry Packard, Daniel R. Lutz, and Michael P.
Cooper. The allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint, which is captioned as a “Motion for Common
Law Action Against Trespass of Rights and Property,” are unintelligible, but he apparently purports
to seek damages from the defendants based on their involvement in a criminal prosecution pending
against him in the Wayne County Municipal Court. See State of Ohio v. Jason Keith Jones, Case
1
In addition to multiple cases assigned to other judges, this case and the following cases filed by
the plaintiff have been assigned to this Court’s docket: Jones v. Wayne County Sheriff’s
Department, Case No. 5 CV 1767, and Jones v. Medina Court of Common Pleas, et al., Case No.
1: 15 CV 1862.
No. 2015 CR 000817 (Wayne County Mun. Ct).2 Along with his complaint, the plaintiff has filed
a motion for a temporary restraining order, seeking to restrain the state criminal case. (Doc No. 3.)
This action is summarily dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), which
requires a federal district court to screen and dismiss before service any in forma pauperis action
the court determines is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,
or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2010).
As in the complaint the plaintiff filed in Jones v. Wayne County Sheriff’s Department, Case
No. 15 CV 1767, the plaintiff’s complaint in this case fails to allege any plausible federal claim on
which relief may be granted against the defendants and is frivolous. The instant complaint again
consists entirely of an amalgam of totally incoherent and incomprehensible legal statements and
assertions that are unconnected in any way to any alleged facts, or to any discernible alleged conduct
of the named defendants. Further, the complaint does not assert any valid federal civil claim, but
only claims for “trespass” based on federal criminal laws.
Even had the plaintiff asserted a valid federal civil rights claim in his complaint, his action
would be subject to dismissal under §1915(e)(2)(B). The judges and prosecutors the plaintiff names
as defendants are immune from damages claims in connection with their official functions. See,
e.g., Barnes v. Winchell, 105 F.3d 1111, 1115 (6th Cir. 1997) (regarding judicial immunity); Imbler
v. Pactman, 424 U.S. 409, 431 (1976) (regarding prosecutorial immunity). And this Court would
abstain from interfering with a pending state criminal matter in accordance with the Supreme
2
The Municipal Court’s public docket indicates that the case is set for jury trial in December
2015, and that defendants Vansickle and Packard are the judge and magistrate judge, and defendants
Lutz and Cooper are prosecutors in the case.
2
Court’s decision in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1972) (establishing that a federal court should
not interfere with or enjoin a pending state criminal proceeding absent extraordinary circumstances).
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc.
No. 2) is granted; the plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. No. 3) is denied; and
this action is summarily dismissed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken
in good faith.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 24, 2015
/s/ John R. Adams
JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?